Discussion: Impact of Technology on Traditional Agriculture: The Peru Case

Professor Coffey has presented a detailed and well-thought-out calculation of the transformation of traditional agriculture in a particular area, in which he has undertaken the necessary extensive fieldwork-a substantial achievement by itself. His conclusions are rather pessimistic. Given his assumption, it will be impossible to achieve the aim of the Alliance of Progress to raise incomes, even if the best presently known techniques are adopted. Moreover, half of the people are and remain redundant. The questions which this raises (some of which Professor Coffey raises himself in the extended version) are several. The first one relates to the internal logic of the model. I do not mean that Professor Coffey has made a mistake, because, as far as I can tell, he hasn't. Nor am I competent to question the input coefficients which he found in his fieldwork. But, logically, any answer one finds must depend on the assumptions one makes. Specifically, the model places limitations on the speed with which land use can be changed and new methods introduced, and by which maximum annual yields can increase. These assumptions sound plausible; in fact, Professor Coffey believes that they err on the optimistic side. Given the assumptions, it is possible to double net returns per available "man equivalent" by the year 2000, provided, one should perhaps add, that population and the labor force do not increase faster than in the past. If it were possible to reduce the available manpower to the required one, the increase could be about five and one-half times.